A city-county councilman wants Indianapolis to monitor police officers’ off-duty jobs the way many other cities do — through a central office that tracks employers and collects fees.

The proposal, which Democrat Vernon Brown said he plans to introduce next month, dives into a thorny philosophical area: Should the public be footing part of the bill for businesses to use department employees and equipment?

Police Chief Michael Spears argued that when off-duty officers work security, on-duty officers can focus on other areas. He pointed to the slew of off-duty officers who watch over the taverns in Broad Ripple on weekends.

“You can imagine,” Spears said, “if we didn’t have those (off-duty) officers working there, we would have to deploy a significant number of on-duty personnel to help maintain order.”

But Brown doesn’t think employers should get a free pass to use the city’s guns, patrol cars and trained officers.

“They are the only job in the world that gets to use the city’s equipment to work part time,” he said of police officers.

Brown introduced his proposal last summer, but it failed to gain support because police union members and council Republicans feared it would raise rates charged to businesses so high that IMPD officers would lose jobs to those from nearby departments.

But last week, in separate interviews, Public Safety Director Scott Newman and Fraternal Order of Police President Bill Owensby said they did not support Brown’s proposal for a central office, but that charging a fee to offset gasoline and other costs is worth consideration.

Owensby said any fee would have to be “very nominal” and used only to offset the cost of gasoline, officer training and other public expenses.

Across the country, many departments charge employers, and the proceeds pay for staff to coordinate and track outside employment.

The Tampa (Fla.) Police Department charges employers $7 an hour — on top of what the officers are paid — plus a vehicle charge if a patrol car is used. The Pittsburgh Bureau of Police imposes a vehicle charge and bills employers $3.88 per hour — money that pays for tracking outside work and helps fund worker’s compensation, civil litigation and other expenses associated with officers working second jobs.

Brown thinks imposing fees on either the officer or the employer would pay for a central office to oversee and track off-duty work.

Republican City-County Councilman Benjamin Hunter, director of public safety for Butler University and a former Indianapolis police officer, said he fears Brown’s proposal merely creates a new level of bureaucracy “that will cost more money than it will actually save.”

Newman said he doesn’t think the city needs an off-duty employment office.

“I think we need some of our resources devoted to making sure off-duty work is appropriate,” he said, “and not excessive so that it sucks the lifeblood out of a police officer.”

Some who hire off-duty officers also worry about a cost increase, especially in the down economy.

Lou Wildeman, who pays off-duty officers to provide security for the strip mall he owns on East 52nd Street, said he opposes a fee on top of what he pays the officers.

“I can hardly afford the rate at this point,” he said. “If it goes up, I probably wouldn’t be able to afford to keep them.”